Just a quick question regarding ERExcelListPage: How can I add a line break
inside one Excel cell? I have a toMany relationship where the customer wants
the values of a destination key put into one Excel cell as a single multi line
value. How can I do this? I already have a simple custom
tacow's next quarterly meeting is scheduled for 6:30 PM on Tuesday, April 12,
2011 in meeting room 304 of Metro Hall - click for agenda and location info.
Note that this meeting marks tacow's 5th anniversary.
Additional details can be found at
http://tacow.org/home/next-regular-meeting.html.
Hi all,
Is there a way to have a model connect to different databases
simultaneously? So, I have a schema that is rev. eng'ed but that same schema
is on 10 different databases, I want to fetch data from different DB's for
different users of the system simultaneously. Is this
i think it's a big no :-(
but you can definitely have multiple models - one for each db - and
relationships between the models.
simon
On 4 April 2011 16:00, Michael Gargano mgarg...@escholar.com wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a way to have a model connect to different databases
Yeah, that's the way to go.
Reverse engineer each database into it's own EOModel, then build the
relationships between the models.
Be mindful that EO's can NOT have the same names across your models. So you
may have to put prefixes on the EO's after you reverse engineer the DB tables.
Paul
Le 2011-04-04 à 11:04, Simon a écrit :
i think it's a big no :-(
but you can definitely have multiple models - one for each db - and
relationships between the models.
+1. And it should make using migrations (especially Migration0) more easier to
deal with.
simon
On 4 April 2011
Actually, it's a yes.
You can create one EOF stack per user and clone the model group so it's used in
that stack. Then adjust the model dict for the connection and you're good to
go. You need to take really good care you never use EOModelGroup.defaultGroup()
anywhere, though.
Cheers, Anjo
That's bad for me, I need to be able to bring new DB's on dynamically. It
wouldn't be possible to rev. eng. each one as needed.
This is quite a road block for me. *sigh*
-Mike
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Simon wrote:
i think it's a big no :-(
but you can definitely have multiple models
Please keep this on-list.
I haven't actually tried it and don't know what you mean by overhead, but the
core idea would be sth like:
public Session() {
EOModelGroup modelGroup = new EOModelGroup();
EOModel model = modelGroup.addModelWithPath(/some/where); // model should
be in a
Sorry, I thought I replied all. Thanks. I'll start here. With overhead I
just mean that the setup for a new EOF stack must not be very fast and my guess
is that it's going to use a fairly large amount of memory.
-Mike
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
Please keep this
Hi Michael,
I have created a prototype with the intent to evaluate this kind of solution.
You can download the source code from GitHub [1]. It uses a very simple model
and it is not feature complete, but you can easily verify the memory
consumption problem.
You can create tenants after
Depending on the actual data, the memory consumption won't be any different in
comparison to a solution based on a shared DB.
Only the reference tables could be re-used, all the other data belongs to the
tenant anyway. Add to that the larger size of the individual records (you'd
need the
Hi Anjo,
On 04/04/2011, at 14:25, Anjo Krank wrote:
Depending on the actual data, the memory consumption won't be any different
in comparison to a solution based on a shared DB.
I haven't explored beyond that simple experiment. So, I can't confirm.
What I have learned with this
Hi all,
I am a bit puzzled about how WO handles concurrent requests.
I have a request that can run for a very long time, let's say 30 minutes. After
looking around at other posts, the options for allowing this to run without the
adaptor and apache complaining after a minute or so are:
*
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone else had experienced the same thing. I have a
X-Serve running OS X 10.5.8 whose apache server is going into a frozen state
where it stops serving requests and can only be restarted by rebooting the
machine. All other services seem to being running normally.
If
WO supports multiple concurrent requests, but EOF has a single lock per EOF
stack. If I were you, I'd break the request apart from the process -- is
something seriously going to sit for 30 minutes waiting for this? What if they
accidentally drop their browser connection? Then they're screwed.
On 2011-04-04, at 8:43 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
WO supports multiple concurrent requests, but EOF has a single lock per EOF
stack. If I were you, I'd break the request apart from the process -- is
something seriously going to sit for 30 minutes waiting for this? What if
they accidentally
On 2011-04-04, at 8:43 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
WO supports multiple concurrent requests, but EOF has a single lock per EOF
stack.
This alone clears up so much for me. Thanks.
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Thank you so much for your time guys. I'm digging into the LongRequest example
to see how I can implement WOLongResponsePage.
On 2011-04-04, at 8:53 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Kevin Hinkson wrote:
Hi all,
I am a bit puzzled about how WO handles concurrent requests.
given that this is a service call from a cron job, there's really no reason to
use a long response page (the cronjob probably doesn't care about the response
... it's just kicking it off) ... just throw a runnable into an ExecutorService
thread pool, make a new eof stack, and go.
ms
On Apr 4,
On 2011-04-04, at 9:13 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
given that this is a service call from a cron job, there's really no reason
to use a long response page (the cronjob probably doesn't care about the
response ... it's just kicking it off) ... just throw a runnable into an
ExecutorService
yeah .. it's preferable to use that over just creating your own thread (so it
can manage how many threads you'll end up with at once) ...
On Apr 4, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Kevin Hinkson wrote:
On 2011-04-04, at 9:13 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
given that this is a service call from a cron job,
On Apr 4, 2011, at 21:27, Mike Schrag msch...@pobox.com wrote:
yeah .. it's preferable to use that over just creating your own thread (so it
can manage how many threads you'll end up with at once) ...
Ok. Thanks again.
On Apr 4, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Kevin Hinkson wrote:
On
23 matches
Mail list logo
